CineForm

Andreas said:
You put me in to serious thoughts here. The way you put it it makes a LOT of sense that we should be resizing before we start editing. I really mean that it sounds like a MAST DO. What are your suggestion, comments for someone like me that is won by Canopus and planning to edit native DVCPRO-HD ? We somehow been over this before, but please explain a little more, are you suggesting that using connect-HD from the beggining and converting-resizing our footage will give better quality in the long run, plus the overall boost up ?
You realy put me in some serious thoughts here... Please analyze the most that you can...
Click to expand...

A lot of this agrument relates the native versus intermediate approach to post production. Native is good it you don't intend to enhance the data, no color correction, no titles, just cuts, and master out to the source footage (in this operation it lossless, even if the source is lossly.) All non-cut operations are lossy in native, and more so than intermediate solutions as the source is not optimized for post (that is a long discussion in itself.) There really very few pro-video productions that benefit from native source format editing. It is sometimes argued that as long as you avoid renders (no compositing it, or use of external tools) the native is OK when master to another format (but there are many ifs.)
-- VS --
In HD uncompressed is often used as an intermediate, it is ideal in quality, not so ideal in data rate, but it is a reference point because everyone agrees on the quality. In an uncompressed/intermediate workflow, source files are compressed (which compression back to source is lossly -- native champions may even point this makes native better than uncompressed, silly really) yet uncompressed has no issue with generation loss in post. Now with a 960x720 source, no one will work uncompressed at 960x720, they will upres upon decode to 1280x720 (some even to 1920x1080.) They are very good reasons for this, 1) square pixels, 2) HDSDI only operates in standard HD resolutions -- i.e. if you don't scale in post, your HD-SDI card (or Deck in the case of DVCPRO-HD decks) will scale the image for you, 3) all you post elements have more resolution. Upscaling to 1280x720 gives you 33% more pixel data, more luma and chroma resolution. And the important 1:1 pixel match to all your output formats, HDSDI, D5, broadcast, HD DVD and BluRay. This is not agrument that CineForm is a way to go, this is true for any NLE.

Now that I've the argument where an intermediate is better, it is a smaller step to realize a compressed intermediate is better (and faster and cheaper because the smaller file sizes.) Of course if the new compression quality is bad, stick with native (or uncompressed), but if the new compression is better than the source compression, and allows for 1:1 pixel formats in 4:2:2, there is no downside.

Now to push to issue further. An 8-bit source can benefit for a 10-bit workflow. For any intermediate renders (like After Effects work) 8-bit processing can introduce banding, so 10-bit compression is the solution (or 10-bit uncompressed.) CineForm offers a compressed 10-bit real-time workflow (Prospect HD) and the only other doing this is AVID, so we are good company. If you read up on AVID's DNxHD you will see they are saying the same things. They even show the advantages DNxHD has over DVCPRO-HD just as CineForm does.

I can go on and on. :)
 
Last edited:
Ok, so working with CineForm intermediate in PPRO2 seems the way to go. I guess Aspect-HD makes the diference. I am really thinking of going Adobe side again. If with a P4 3ghz gives 3-4 1080i real time streams like I read in CineForm website it rocks.
There are three things I need to know before making my mind,
1) Someone from Panasonic (Jan would be perfect) make a comment on Davids above statements on DVCPRO-HD 960X720 editing
2) I didn't uderstand "banding" is 8-bit workflow a problem ? David please explain.
3) What is the best quality exporting option in PPRO2 when you have worked with CineForm intermediate?


It gets boring but once again Thanks to David for his time.
Andreas
 
1) Panasonic is welcome to chime in here.

2) Banding can occur in color correction if you have to render to an 8-bit file (compressed or uncompressed.) 8-bit get you a maximum of 256 luma levels, much fewer in colors red and blue (like in sky gradients.) When you color correct, you are moving values around such that you can create fewer luma levels (you never really add new levels without added noise.) A simple example, if you have a grey ramp from 0 to 255, i.e. 20,21,22,23,24,25... then you reduce the contast you get 20,21,21,22,23,24,24.. the duplicate values are seen as banding. In a 10-bit compressed system the same 8-bit input is stored as 80,84,88,92,96,100...., then the same contrast operation gives 80,83,86,89,92,95, maintaining all the discrete levels and therefore no banding.

3) For broadcast I when export (Prospect HD) via an AJA Xena LHe card to a D5 deck or HDCAM SR (both offer 10-bit 4:2:2.) For filmouts use DPX/Cineon sequences from AE Pro. For archive export to CineForm AVI.
 
David Newman said:
A scriptable shell version of HDLink.exe is possible -- never thought of that before. How would you like to use it?
Click to expand...

very basic:
Hdlink
(convert everythink in current dir into cineform avis using some default config)

basic:
Hdlink infile "f:\files\file.hvx"

more than basic:
Hdlink infile "f:\files\file.hvx" oufolder "g:\cineform_avi\"

advanced:
Hdlink infile "f:\files\file.hvx" oufolder "g:\cineform_avi\" resize 1280x720 deinterlace auto m2 true hdfilesize medium splitfiles false converisonlog "g:\cineform-avi\log.txt" ect...

or:
Hdlink infile "f:\files\file.hvx" config "d:\hdlink_config.txt"
Hdlink infolder "f:\files\" config "d:\hdlink_config.txt"

or:
Hdlink infilelist "c:\files_ascii.txt" config "d:\hdlink_config.txt"

(where the command line is in priority versus config file)

p.s. and add an important switch: priority (idle, low, medium, high..) - i mean there is no problems on my job dual xeon, but my home single cpuer is really useless while conversion is going on.
 
Last edited:
G'day David.

The never ending thread.

In Prospect HD Ingest/Edit v2, using in conjunction with one of the AJA cards you recommend, can you input from a 1080i camera (Z1 or similar) and capture to the CineForm codec as a 1080p file?

It says this on your site...

"Optional resampling of HDV 1440 x 1080i/p to 1920 x 1080i/p (square pixel) at 10-bit."
 
peter orland said:
G'day David.

The never ending thread.

In Prospect HD Ingest/Edit v2, using in conjunction with one of the AJA cards you recommend, can you input from a 1080i camera (Z1 or similar) and capture to the CineForm codec as a 1080p file?

It says this on your site...

"Optional resampling of HDV 1440 x 1080i/p to 1920 x 1080i/p (square pixel) at 10-bit."
Click to expand...

That resampling is for M2T data and P2 data which are both "naturally" lower resolution than the 1920x1080 HD standard. When you use the analog (or digital)inputs on the AJA the 1080 signal is aways sampled at 1920x1080, so no up-res is required. There is not 1080i to 1080p conversion other than pull-down extraction which applies to Sony Cineframe 24 mode and Canon's 24F mode. It you have 1080i50/i60 and what to convert these to 1080p25/p24 it is best to do that in post.
 
David,
I just finished cutting my first feature (with Premiere Pro 1.5), and after numerous renders and exports/imports, it seems my footage is being slightly degraded (those horrible, yet barely noticeable horizontal lines). It was shot with a DVX100A, so of course it's SD, but my question is...
Can you use Aspect HD to capture/convert SD footage? And if so, is it better to edit long-form projects with the CineForm Intermediate codec because of the visual losslessness and multi-generational capabilities?
If you have Aspect HD for Premiere Pro 1.5, would there be any reason to NOT use it for ANY project, SD or HD?

Thanks David!
 
I wanted to take a moment to provide some feedback to you, David. Everyone else feel free to disregard:

I just finished downloading the demo version of ConnectHD, convinced that I would be purchasing it within the hour. Sadly, the program lasted less than three minutes on my hard drive. Why? I see that you utilize Product Activation, a needless method of exerting control over legitimate buyers. I upgrade (read: replace) my system at least twice a year (often more), and Product Activation is simply unacceptable to me. I still run Windows 2000 because of of XP's activation. I have painstakingly selected only applications that do not restrict my ability to use the product that I paid for. I do not use pirated software of any kind, but feel I should be able to use what I bought for as long as I like.

Too many times I've seen Product Activation used as a strongarm tactic by software developers to force customers to re-buy a product after switching machines, or forcing them into a paid upgrade. Sadly, while your product had so much potential, I see that CineForm publicly admits to doing this on their website's activation page:

"NOTE 1: we will no longer activate versions of Connect HD earlier than v1.9 and Aspect HD earlier than v3.3. If you have one of these earlier version, simply download and install the latest software version before beginning the activation process."

As a casual observer, I would conclude that if I were to have purchased a copy of ConnectHD older than v1.9, and needed to reinstall on a new PC, I would have to pay $99 for an upgrade to the newest version in order to have activation "granted." Clicking on the link, however, I see that one only needs to upgrade to version 2.1 to get activation. But how long until version 2.1 isn't supported anymore? Why should I buy ConnectHD now if I won't be guaranteed the ability to reinstall at a later date, even if the product is no longer supported or sold, or if CineForm goes under?

I'm sorry if this has become a rant, but I am really disappointed with what is clearly an otherwise quality product. In the future, I would gladly purchase this product if the activation was removed.

Thanks for the opportunity to hear my thoughts. If you would like any other input on this issue, or would like to discuss it in private, feel free to PM me.

--Cam-Ra
 
Where does Axio weigh in?

Where does Axio weigh in?

David,
I've got an AxioHD system, but with my HVX200 due any day now, I've really not jumped in to the HD world just yet. With AxioHD, MXF support (announced at NAB) is in beta now. Immediate plan is to ingest 1394 streamed from the HVX into Axio, or try some of the Raylight conversion solutions.

Probably not fair to ask your views on comparisons of Axio and Cineform hardware solutions, but reading your threads helps me realize how much I don't yet know about my own system.

Perhaps you could comment on things Cineform HD solutions do really well compared to Axio. I see you addressing "native" (which Axio has a lot of) vs. intermediate solutions. You seem to be saying native solutions are not all they're cracked up to be. Not sure I understand that. In Axio's world, native = fast or RT/nearly RT.

Appreciated your comments about working in 10-bit even if ingesting 8-bit video. I have that option and have wondered which is the best way to go.

I'll have more to add to threads like this in the future as camera arrives and I sink my teeth in. I'm anxious to have full mxf support in conjunction with the existing native DVCProHD codecs in Axio. What I saw working at NAB was quite amazing.
John
 
Cam-Ra,

It seems your fears have gotten the better of you. At $199 for Connect HD, if you don't shortly make your money back from improved productivity you have other more series issues. Connect HD upgrades have been free for two years, and we just did a $99 upgrade for those who wanted the new features (HVX support in what was originally an HDV only product -- a complete bonus for only $99), we don't force anyone to upgrade. We see no reason to pull old versions from our servers for the cents a months it would save us. We are also enhancing our activation so you can move licenses more easily and automatically. The is all pretty good for a product that is not in a commodity market, HD post community it not big enough yet for for us to go without licensing, plus a licensing pretty much matches the products is runs on such as Premiere Pro and Sony Vegas. Just like XP you can do large modifications to you PC, and everything keeps on working (I replace my motherboard and CPU without needing a new XP license.) We don't price for software theft, we go our best to keep prices are low. We work hard for customers, and our support is one the best, particularly for a company so small.
 
John Morgan said:
I've got an AxioHD system, but with my HVX200 due any day now...
Click to expand...

Sorry, can't help you there. :) Seriously I don't know much about Axio other than it is more expensive than the CineForm solution. The high-end Avio is more equivalent to Prospect HD system, although AVIO has no 10-bit compressed options -- it is either 8-bit MPEG compressed (I-Frame, or native whatever) and 10-bit uncompressed. That's all I know. CineForm strongly believes 10-bit uncompressed is a waste of disk space, as you are forced into a proxy/conform workflows on long form projects. We have filmmakers ingesting entire HDCAM shoots (20:1 shoot ratio feature films) into a single workstation with a 3-4 drive RAID, 1920x1080 10-bit -- no offline need. This is what you missing out on with Axio. Now that my rant is over, Matrox is a cool company and the Axio will likely work well -- particularly for those few clients that demand uncompressed (those crazy clients.)
 
Cam-Ra said:
I
I'm sorry if this has become a rant, but I am really disappointed with what is clearly an otherwise quality product. In the future, I would gladly purchase this product if the activation was removed.

--Cam-Ra
Click to expand...

I have to agree that this is a major drawback to the CineForm products. I think we all understand companies wanting to protect their software from being pirated, but when it starts to feel like the software companies care more about protecting their licenses then making a nice work flow for the customers it is annoying.
I have 5 computers at my desk, one notebook, 2 workstations, a render box and a server. Often times I don't have time to wait for renders, so I'll kick a render to another box. One computer may be doing a composite while another is rendering a file to DVD, while I edit on another box. Now I don't have a fortune into these systems, mostly they are systems I replaced with newer boxes, or cheap machines I threw together for another render box. But buying a license for each computer I might possibly want to use the software on, or having to unlicense from one box to another just to do a render is either not cost effective or a pain. I'm not going to spend $2500 to buy 5 copies of AspectHD or $200 a piece for ConnectHD, which is what it would take to be able to have the same work flow I get with DV right now. I would like to see some other licensing options, like site licenses, or ease up on the restrictions. I too rebuild systems all the time, and don't want to have to go through product activations all the time, just because I replaced a motherboard, or reinstalled an OS. Companies like Discrete realize this and give us unlimited render licenses with their software, so that we can buy one license, and be able to have the sort of work flow that we're used to. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of copy protection I'm just saying it is easier to get behind a piece of software when it is more license friendly.

(This by the way is not just a jab at CineForm, but at all software manufacturers that make our lives more difficult with their more and more intrusive copy protection schemes, that make it difficult for the legitimate users out there.)
 
Last edited:
Once in a while the subject goes, here. CineForm has fewer than 10 people working very hard, we asked to have policies like Discrete, yet we can't possibly charge like Discrete. Catch-22. Our policies are a open as we can afford to having them, and stay in business. It is hard to understand all this as a customer, I'm both partner in developing this technology and customer of it, I not as unaware as some would suggest. I can only assure you we are doing our best, if that is not good enough for some, I'm sorry that we lose your business. That said we do off site licensing, we try to meet customer needs, one only has to call or email to ask -- in general we are more flexible than most (small enough that we can be.)

Now can we get back to solving problems? It's why I' like coming here.
 
I'm pretty impressed with Aspect HD and haven't had a single issue to date - and the price is pretty reasonable. My only wish is that I could convert files via cmd line. :)
 
We have filmmakers ingesting entire HDCAM shoots (20:1 shoot ratio feature films) into a single workstation with a 3-4 drive RAID, 1920x1080 10-bit -- no offline need. This is what you missing out on with Axio.
Click to expand...

Matrox Axio has a few sweet codec tricks up its sleeve as well. I don't know the compression ratio at the moment, but each of the various HD project settings includes the choice of using their native MPEG-2 I-frame codec as well as native DVCPro HD, HDV*, Offline, 8-bit uncompressed or 10-bit uncompressed. MXF support for P2 and XDCAM will be finished by September 2006.
[*available only with 1080i projects]

Axio, as a hardware card/breakout only, does cost more than other emerging hardware solutions, but I found when you look closely, the other solutions don't have the same feature set. And Axio has emerged like crazy in the one year its been on the market....and continues to do so. The value of that continued development is well worth the extra cost. All those upgrades to AxioUtils are free to registered users.

Beyond the Matrox hardware, I think they're wise to wrap it in a turnkey system that meets their certifications....but that system shouldn't be considered as part of Axio's cost. Once you get Axio and see how remarkable their recommended systems are, (I'm getting 411MB/s from a dual fiber-channel Rorke Data Galaxy HDX through an ATTO Celerity FC 42XS; 3 to 4 streams 1080i depending on fx and 13 streams SD D1), it's all worth it.

Still, everyone respects Cineform's great compression schemes and hardware, and you have a price point that makes sense for many. Great stuff you're doing.
John
 
John Morgan said:
Still, everyone respects CineForm's great compression schemes and hardware, and you have a price point that makes sense for many. Great stuff you're doing.
John
Click to expand...

Well thanks, however the point many miss we do our 10-bit workflow without hardware. We can on online 10-bit on a laptop. The CineForm vs Matrox approaches are very different. Matrox is a hardware company making great hardware based solutions, CineForm excels at software acceleration and image compression. Different paths to the same goal.
 
KCarey said:
I'm pretty impressed with Aspect HD and haven't had a single issue to date - and the price is pretty reasonable. My only wish is that I could convert files via cmd line. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks. We will definitely consider command line base files conversion.
 
This might be a question for the cineform website, but since it's HVX specific, I thought I'd post it here- anyone know a way to keep the audio files with the video files that I convert with HDLink to get from HVX/MXF to Premiere Pro/AVI?
 
Axio is great right now, but overall, I'm not too excited about it as a long-term investment.

There have been countless instances and products where hardware-based platforms get swallowed by nimbler software-based products as processing power increases.

When we simply had dual-processor, single-core systems, Axio was a must have. By next year when you have dual-processor, quad-core systems and real-time GPU effects, Axio will be a bit of a joke, in that you've paid for a very expensive break-out box . . . I do realize of course that Axio "scales" with the host processor, but that simply means that it's not doing a whole lot on the card . . . most of the effects and so forth are actually running on the computer, and the card is working on output.

Another thing to consider is that as more and more systems go tapeless, the need for a real-time HD-SDI to-tape output becomes moot. You'll have to render regardless of the fact that you're using a real-time HD-SDI output or something like Cineform with an AJA card.

And finally the fact that it's not PCIe to me seals its fate. I think in two years the Axio will be a worthless hunk of junk in comparison to nimble Blackmagic/AJA based systems using GPU and software-based real-time effects on quad-core or eight-core processor boxes (for a total of 8 or 16 processing cores). Of course this is just my opinion and I could be proven completely wrong ;)

The last point I want to make are to those commenting about the licensing schemes of Cineform . . . sure, they can be a bit expensive when you need to cover a number of boxes, but have you tried doing the same with Axio?? Too bad, because you actually can't even run the footage digitzied on an Axio box that doesn't have an Axio card (if you use their MPEG-2, DVCProHD, and uncompressed codecs)! Talk about a hefty licensing fee (or just a super-expensive dongle)!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top